21
Sep, 2017

Corporate Stamps No Longer Needed in Banks as of October 1

The National Bank of Serbia adopted alterations and amendments to seven by-laws in the field of payment operations, thus resolving the dilemma regarding the liability of companies to use their corporate stamp when using payment services.

The rule that companies are not obliged to use stamps in their business letters and other documents (unless otherwise prescribed by law), was explicitly set with the Companies Act, that became applicable in 2012. Even with the Payment Services Act, which applies since October of 2015 and which, in accordance with relevant EU directives provides that legal entities and entrepreneurs are not liable to use their stamps in the subject field, the practice of business banks in applying this rule was highly inconsistent. More precisely, business entities were generally obliged to stamp their payment orders and other relevant documents, unless they were using electronic banking services.

The importance of resolving of the above-mentioned issue was also identified in the Program of (then candidate for) Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Ana Brnabić. Namely, the subject Program stated that, despite of the existing regulations, there are still more than 70 different rulebooks and other by-laws requiring the use of stamp and also announced the reduction of the subject obligation to its minimum—in line with contemporary European and world digitization tendencies. By adopting the subject alterations and amendments (i.e. the Decisions on Alterations and Amendments to the Decision on Conditions of Opening and Manner of Maintaining Foreign Exchange Accounts of Residents and Dinar and Foreign Exchange Accounts of Non-Residents; the Decisions on Amendments to the Decision on Operating Terms and Procedures in the Foreign Exchange Market; the Decisions on Amendments to the Decision on Form, Content and Manner of Using Payment Order Forms for Dinar Payment Transactions; the Decisions on Alteration and Amendment to the Decision on Detailed Conditions and Manner of Opening, Maintaining and Closing Current Accounts; the Decisions on Alteration and Amendment to the Decision on Detailed Terms, Contents and Manner of Keeping the Register of Promissory Notes and Mandates; the Instruction for Implementation of Certain Provisions of the Decision on Capital Adequacy of Banks Concerning the Capital of the Bank; and the Instruction on Alterations and Amendments to the Instruction for Implementation of the Decision on Conditions and Manner of Performing International Payment Operations, all published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 82/2017 from September 8, 2017), the National Bank of Serbia has certainly made a significant step in that direction.

The statement of the Governor of the National Bank of Serbia’s Cabinet from September 8, provides that the adopted alterations and amendments, which come into force on October 1, 2017, specify that “banks cannot refuse to provide payment services only because the client does not want to use the stamp in his business with the bank.” In addition, the subject statement further clarifies the practical implications of the aforementioned. Namely, companies that have already opened their bank accounts and have been using stamp for certifying their payment orders shall have the possibility, starting from October 1, to refer to their bank in writing, requesting to be allowed to submit the payment orders without stamp in the future. The bank is obliged to enable the aforementioned as of the next day, without signing an annex to the payment services agreement. As for the legal entities and entrepreneurs that plan to open their bank accounts after October 1, the liability of using the stamp when authorizing payment orders, as well as other documents related to payment operations and services (such as specimen signatures cards, promissory notes, etc.) shall exist only if explicitly requested and agreed so with the chosen bank.

For example, Article 21. Paragraph 2. of the Instruction on Alterations and Amendments to the Instruction for Implementation of the Decision on Conditions and Manner of Performing International Payment Operations stipulates that “bank cannot refuse to execute the payment order referred to in Paragraph 1. of this Article solely because the principal did not certify his payment order with stamp, unless it is explicitly agreed that the bank is obliged to refuse the execution of such payment order, on the basis of the written request of the subject person.”

In this way, the use of corporate stamps between bank and client becomes an exception instead of the rule, whereby deciding on the existence of the subject obligation is left entirely to the will of the users of banking services and products.

It remains to be seen how the new regulation will be implemented and whether in practice it will lead to problems related to inspecting and determining authorization of payment instruments, and if it may be necessary to make changes to adopted alterations and amendments to further improve them.

Lastly, in addition to the practical application in day-to-day operations of companies, the adopted alterations and amendments also have significance in terms of Serbia’s position on the World Bank’s Doing Business list. Speedy resolution for these redundant procedures is certainly necessary and highly recommended beyond the banking sector as well.

Latest news

Gecić Law is one of the foremost innovative law firms in Serbia. We have achieved this by building long-term relationships with clients based on reciprocity, trust and the highest standards of professional ethics. By adopting new models for the delivery of legal services, we have redefined the role that a law firm plays in an emerging regional market, which has produced truly exceptional results.

On January 24, the European Commission imposed a EUR 997 million fine on the world’s largest supplier of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) baseband chipsets, Qualcomm, and once again unequivocally confirmed that abusive market practices by dominant players were the eyesore of the EU competition law. By levying one of the highest fines in history, the Commission reproached the renowned US chipmaker for making financial concessions to Apple, its biggest customer, on the condition that it would buy LTE baseband chipsets exclusively from Qualcomm. This penalty came as one piece of puzzle currently surrounding the American tech giant – Qualcomm lost a battle on one front, but it remains to be seen who will eventually win the war.

In our previous piece (link), we discussed the relationship between IT companies and developers in the field of material copyrights over computer programs (“software”) in context of commercial usage of software by IT companies. However, the relationship between IT companies and developers in the field of copyrights might be of particular importance when it comes to amendments, adaptations, adjustments and other changes to the software as a copyrighted work. Namely, IT companies often modify, customize, upgrade and/or update software developed by their employed developers and/or external developers, or deliver the subject software to their clients for further modifications, customizations, adaptations, adjustments and other changes to the delivered software in accordance with their particular needs and technical requirements, most often without any restrictions, imposed either by the IT company that delivered the software, or by the developers who directly worked on the development of that particular software.

Law is not a perfect system. In other words, given that the legislation of any given country is tasked with regulating a vast and varied specter of areas, it not uncommon for issues to surface that either are void of regulation, or governed by a multitude of rules simultaneously, albeit differently. Namely, applying rules to particular “real-life” situations may unearth certain issues that are not regulated clearly enough i.e. that are disputed, while some of them snowball due to the frequency with which they arise. Undoubtedly, one such issue is the right of legal entities to compensation of non-material damage on the ground of commercial defamation.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive publications on any areas please subscribe.